Hi Edward,
this is interesting as I think the available data rather justifies
asking why one would not include them :)
The background is that motion explains a substantial portion of the
variance in the data. This has been shown in a classical paper by
Friston et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699946) and in some
less-classical ones from myself
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25333359 and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22036679). The rationale for
including them is that if known confounds are included, modeling them
will lead to more accurate estimates for your parameter of interest.
Cheers,
Marko
Edward Justin Modestino wrote:
> Dear experts,
> I am at a bottleneck of getting something published. The editor needs
> me to justify using the the realignment parameter file as nuisance. Can
> anyone please provide me with a reference justifying this?
> Thanks,
> Ed Modestino
>
> --
> Edward Justin Modestino, Ph.D.
> Research Assistant Professor of Neurology, Boston University School of
> Medicine
> Dept. of Neurology, VA Boston Healthcare System
--
____________________________________________________
PD Dr. med. Marko Wilke
Facharzt für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin
Leiter, Experimentelle Pädiatrische Neurobildgebung
Universitäts-Kinderklinik
Abt. III (Neuropädiatrie)
Marko Wilke, MD, PhD
Pediatrician
Head, Experimental Pediatric Neuroimaging
University Children's Hospital
Dept. III (Pediatric Neurology)
Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1
D - 72076 Tübingen, Germany
Tel. +49 7071 29-83416
Fax +49 7071 29-5473
[log in to unmask]
http://www.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/kinder/epn/
____________________________________________________
|